Imbalance of a case = when defendant not filed written statment and participated in cross examination of plaintiff's witness = In our considered opinion, the need to remand the case to the Senior Civil Judge for trying the civil suit afresh on merits has occasioned for more than one reason. 14. First, we find that the trial in the suit has not been done satisfactorily inasmuch as the defendant was not afforded an adequate opportunity to file his written statement. 15. Second, in the absence of any written statement, the defendant could neither adduce proper evidence nor file any documentary evidence in support of his case. 5 16. Third, the rights of the parties were, therefore, decided by the two Courts (Trial Court and First Appellate Court) by decreeing the suit and the High Court by dismissing the suit on the basis of insufficient evidence. In our view, it caused prejudice to both the parties. 17. Fourth, we do not find any justifiable reason to deny the defendant of his right to file the written statement. He was entitled to file the written statement and to adduce oral and documentary evidence for contesting the suit on merits. 18. It is a settled law that all the contesting parties to the suit must get fair opportunity to contest the suit on merits in accordance with law. A decision rendered by the Courts in an unsatisfactory conducting of the trial of the suit is not legally sustainable. It is regardless of the fact that in whose favour the decision in the trial may go. 6 19. It is for these reasons, we are of the view that these appeals deserve to be allowed and matter is remitted to the Trial Court for deciding the civil suit afresh on merits in accordance with law It is a settled law that all the contesting parties to the suit must get fair opportunity to contest the suit on merits in accordance with law. A decision rendered by the Courts in an unsatisfactory conducting of the trial of the suit is not legally sustainable. It is regardless of the fact that in whose favour the decision in the trial may go.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL  APPEAL Nos.3282­3283 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.20295­20296 of 2017)
Rajinder Tiwari ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Kedar Nath(Deceased)
Thr. L.Rs. & Ors.               ….Respondent(s)
               
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against  the final
judgment and order dated 03.11.2016 passed by
the   High   Court   of   Delhi   at   New   Delhi   in   R.S.A.
1
No.188 of 2010 whereby the High Court allowed the
RSA filed by the respondents herein and order dated
26.04.2017 in CM(Application) No.46865 of 2016 by
which the High Court  dismissed the application for
re­hearing   of   the   second   appeal   filed   by   the
appellant herein.
3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the
disposal of the appeals, which involve a short point.
4. The appellant is the plaintiff and the original
respondent   (now   represented   by   his   legal
representatives) is the defendant in the civil suit out
of which these appeals arise.
5. The appellant(plaintiff)  filed  Civil Suit No. 147
of 2007  against the original respondent(defendant)
in   the   Court   of   Senior   Civil   Judge­cum­Rent
Controller(North East Dist.),  Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi for permanent injunction in relation to the
suit property.
2
6. It is not in dispute that the defendant’s  right
to   file   the   written   statement   was   closed   by   the
Senior Civil Judge with the result, the defendant
could not file his written statement and nor could
file any documentary evidence. 
7. The plaintiff then adduced his evidence. The
defendant,  however, could only cross­examine the
plaintiff's witnesses without his defence for want of
written statement. 
8.    By judgment/decree dated 01.02.2010, the
Senior   Civil   Judge   decreed   the   plaintiff's   suit   by
passing   a   decree   for   permanent   injunction   as
prayed by him. The defendant felt aggrieved and
filed   first   appeal   before   the   Additional   District
Judge.
9.   By   judgment   dated   26.07.2010,   the   first
Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld
3
the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil
Judge. 
10. The defendant felt aggrieved and filed second
appeal in the High Court of Delhi. By order dated
03.11.2016,   the   High   Court   allowed   the   second
appeal, set aside the judgment of the first Appellate
Court   and   dismissed   the   plaintiff's   (appellant’s
herein) suit. Thereafter the plaintiff filed application
for re­hearing of the second appeal but the same
was dismissed by order dated 26.04.2017.  Against
both the orders, the appellant(plaintiff) has filed the
present   appeals   by   way   of   special   leave   in   this
Court.
11. So,     the   short   question,   which   arises   for
consideration in these appeals, is whether the High
Court   was   justified   in   allowing   the   defendant's
second   appeal   and   was,     therefore,     justified   in
dismissing the plaintiff's (appellant’s herein) suit.
4
12. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are inclined to allow these appeals and while setting
aside the impugned orders, remand the case to the
Trial Court (Senior Civil Judge) for trying the civil
suit afresh on merits in accordance with law.
13. In our considered opinion, the need to remand
the case to the Senior Civil Judge for trying the civil
suit afresh on merits has occasioned for more than
one reason.
14. First, we find that the trial in the suit has not
been done satisfactorily inasmuch as the defendant
was not afforded an adequate opportunity to file his
written statement. 
15. Second,   in   the   absence   of   any   written
statement,   the   defendant   could   neither   adduce
proper evidence nor file any documentary evidence
in support of his case. 
5
16. Third, the rights of the parties were, therefore,
decided by the two Courts (Trial Court and First
Appellate Court) by decreeing the suit and the High
Court   by   dismissing   the   suit   on   the   basis   of
insufficient   evidence.     In   our   view,   it   caused
prejudice to both the parties.
17. Fourth, we do not find any justifiable reason to
deny the defendant of his right to file the written
statement.     He   was   entitled   to   file   the   written
statement   and   to   adduce   oral   and   documentary
evidence for contesting the suit on merits.
18. It is a settled law that all the contesting parties
to the suit must get fair opportunity to contest the
suit on merits in accordance with law. A decision
rendered   by   the   Courts   in   an   unsatisfactory
conducting   of   the   trial   of   the   suit   is   not   legally
sustainable. It is regardless of the fact that in whose
favour the decision in the trial may go.
6
19. It is for these reasons, we are of the view  that
these appeals deserve to be allowed and matter is
remitted to the Trial Court for deciding the civil suit
afresh on merits in accordance with law. 
20. The respondents herein (legal representatives
of original defendant) are accordingly granted liberty
to   file   their   written   statement   within   one   month
from the date of their appearance in the suit. The
Trial Court will thereafter frame issues arising in
the suit on the basis of the pleadings of the parties
and then allow the parties to adduce their evidence
in addition to the evidence already adduced. The
parties   will   also   be   allowed   to   file   additional
documents, if they so wish.
21. The   Trial   Court   will   decide   the   suit   on   the
basis of the pleadings and the evidence adduced by
the parties uninfluenced by any judgment passed
by the Courts in this Case on the earlier occasion.
7
22. We, however, make it clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the issue
while having formed an opinion to remand the case
to the Trial Court.
23. Let   the   trial   be   completed   within   one   year.
Parties   to   appear   before   the   Senior   Civil   Judge
(North East District), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on
02.04.2019.   
24. The appeals thus succeed and are accordingly
allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the
suit is restored to its original file for being tried on
merits as indicated above.
     
                                   .………...................................J.
                                   [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]   
                               
    …...……..................................J.
             [DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
March 28, 2019
8